E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Robert Bazell visited Fukushima in May 2011, and witnessed the tragic the effects of the nuclear disaster firsthand. People were forced to leave their homes in the area surrounding the plant due to high radiation levels.
By Robert Bazell
NBC News
The terrifying atmosphere of crisis, confrontation and lack of communication in the days following the accident at Fukushima burns through the report on the crisis just released by an elite commission set up by the Japanese government. The document details anxious moments when officials even considered the evacuation of Tokyo. One of the world’s largest cities, Tokyo is home to almost 9 million people. How an evacuation could be accomplished can only be horrific guesswork.
The government set up the panel run by the Rebuild Japan Initiative with full investigatory powers in response to the ever-increasing evidence that Tokyo Electric Power, owners of the plant, and the government, had been far from forthcoming in describing the unfolding disaster and its implications for the public. The report, first obtained by the New York Times and slated for release later this week, is likely to be the best history of the accident for years.
During my time at NBC I covered the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania in 1979, the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima almost a year ago. Despite major differences, there are frightening similarities. In each case due to both a lack of information and a desire to calm the public, authorities offered false reassurances. Only Chernobyl led to immediate deaths and huge numbers of additional cancer cases in the years since. There was almost no radiation release from Three Mile Island, but it took years to discover how close the meltdown had come to releasing a catastrophic amount. The health effects from Fukushima have so far led to relatively few worker injuries at the site and a hypothetical but small risk of additional cancers in many parts of Japan in the future.
When I began covering Fukushima, I tried to be reassuring. Despite the confusion described in this latest report during the first few days after the accident, there was increasing verifiable evidence that radiation in significant amounts was not spreading beyond the immediate vicinity of the plant. But when I later returned I had more of a sense of how tragic the effects were on the 80,000 people who were forced to leave their homes in the 12 mile area surrounding the plant. I am including video reports from the months after the accident; one dealing with the immediate effects of the disaster and the other with the nature of the future cancer risk.
No one in Fukushima has shown signs of illness from radiation exposure, but more than 80,000 people have been turned into radiation refugees. Robert Bazell's report from June 2011.
What are the lessons? Nuclear power is attractive because it releases no greenhouse gases to increase global warming. But because of concerns about safety it has always been enormously more expensive than other sources of energy, and Fukushima will make it even more so. Accidents by definition happen when unexpected events strike, whether through human error or natural events like the monstrous tsunami that struck Japan. These three accidents show that severe nuclear accidents are thankfully rare. But consequences often exceed our worst fears.
Leave a Comment:
So they had to chose between risking the population in an evacuation panic or in a radiation spill. It's a lose/lose deal from the start. There is a fix though... Don't live near a damn nuclear power plant.
"Consequences exceed our worst fears"? Really?
Even taking the worst of the nuclear incidents, Chernobyl, my worst fears are WAY more horrific than that.
I'd much rather live near a nuke reactor than a coal plant.
Difference being, the Japanese's confusion over Fukushima is somewhat understandable given the overall scale of the disaster (you know... that tsunami that actually killed 15-20 thousand people? As opposed to the Fukushima reactors, which haven't killed anyone... yet). The other two meltdowns had no such qualifying circumstances.
Three Mile wasn't a meltdown, just an accident that safely avoided a meltdown. Big difference.
Guess again, dude.
Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. It was later found that about one-half of the core melted during the early stages of the accident. Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
Shak,
Exactomente! There was indeed a meltdown at TMI. Notice that this is referred to as "the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident". Although how this occurred is an interesting story, for brevity, let's just say it was the result of a comedy of human errors (e.g., operators inadvertantly overriding automatic safety systems, etc.). Had the accident never occurred, you would swear the story was fiction; however, the accident did occur, and the story is factual. Nuclear power opponents have pointed to this accident for over 30 years as an example of the danger of nuclear power. This seems to me fundamentally illogical. Not only is the TMI accident not an example of the danger of nuclear power, it is the ultimate example of its safety. The fact is that TMI Unit 2 experienced the worst accident envisioned for a nuclear power plant, and the end result was that no one was injured.
Regards,
CK
Looks like folks here could care less about risk as long as they're able to provide for their energy addiction. Folks can ignore reality all they want, but ignoring the consequences of ignoring reality is another matter altogether. Oh well. That pro-nuke constituency has been heard. The NRC has just approved the first nuke plant since 3 Mile Island, and just a year after Fukushima. I hope my pessimism is unfounded.
I live near 2 coal power plants, so you really think I wouldn't trade them in for nukes? Sorry I would rather have clean air then what I am forced to breathe due to two coal power plants in my area
The first thing that we can do to shut down nuke plants is DEMAND that they pay for insurance for potential future damage caused by the plant malfunctioning. NO "energy" company can afford to pay that, just as they cant even afford to decommission them. These two factors sort of explain why we are where we are. The government gave the "energy" companies a waiver from having insurance. The owner of this plant recieved an extension because the were "65 BILLION short of having the money to decommission it". Funny, in the "free market", if you cannot afford to pay your utility bill, they shut you off.
So who is really responsible here? You are. If these plants fail, YOU LOSE. YOU HAVE NO INSURANCE.
So how is it, our government can demand that WE all buy health insurance but does not require any "energy" companies to insure these plants? They use the same logic to allow them to raise prices due to "speculation" and to give them BILLIONS in subsidies at OUR expense.
Time to take matters into our own hands. All of this because the kock brothers refuse to put scrubbers on coal fired plants and once again, our government is "powerless". Or because they do not want to?